Michael Hearn wrote: > - Optionally abstract this system so Jabber is not a necessary component for the >authentication.
> However, like I've said before, we should recognise that this is bigger > than Jabber. If we define a protocol, it should be sufficiently > abstracted to allow bindings to other protocols as well, therefore > allowing interoperability. hm... my first reaction is "jabber can do it, i'm sure, and do it better than anything else, so to hell with porting to other platforms". then i caught myself and realized that you do have a point with interoperability. so i'm going to propose a comprimise between my old and your ways: we treat auth in jabber like we treat IM. that is, jabber has it's own protocol that works best for it, but then also has 'transports' to other auth systems (like liberty alliance's, passport federation, and dotgnu's when/if they get it done). this way jabber keeps the power of having it's own custom system, but interoperates with ease to others... i think this is the best approach. _______________________________________________ jdev mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/jdev
